New York Times wimping out as usual. “Sparing” is effectively paying them billions that’ll have to be made up by citizens either in taxes or cuts in services.
7 Likes
wimping or not it shows the difference between presidents.
3 Likes
True, but the terminology downplays that difference. If there’s ever a calling to account for this disaster, the NYT’s deferential attitude that strove to gave the benefit of the doubt to the regime should be on the docket.
6 Likes
Read that in a William Shatner voice. Yes, sir!!
1 Like
As painful as Manchin is, there is truth to this. Being the majority, even only in name, has important powers associated with it. As Democrats learned during the Kavanaugh hearings and vote.
3 Likes
With the close race that Manchin is in, and the level of built-in racism of his constituency, I think you can rely as much on Manchin following through on what he says right now about as much as you can rely on Trump, with his fake tax cuts, his professed love for pre-existing condition coverage, and his confidence in an XO over-riding the Constitution.
3 Likes
In Republican-leaning Texas and Georgia, early and absentee voting for people under 30 years old has increased by more than 400 per cent, according to TargetSmart, a Democratic data firm tracking early voting nationwide.
Heading for Hot Taco Tuesday?
6 Likes
At this point (eight years as Senator, five as governor) his constituents do have to believe he’ll follow through on at least some of his right-wing statements, even if it’s enabling and providing “bipartisan” cover for Il Douche’s nativist policies. Which is a problem.
5 Likes
Voting for Kavanaugh, though symbolic in effect, should have helped with his bona fides in that regard. I still think it’s shit, but makes purely political sense.
4 Likes
In raw terms in WV, sure. But despite the old saw that “all politics is local”, on the national scale a lot of liberals and progressives are looking at this and asking what kind of Democratic Party would allow someone like this to keep running under its banner. The answer has increasingly been “a corrupt and compromised one drifting ever rightward”, which is not a positive for brand goodwill.
5 Likes
“No, the leftist sentiments on display here aren’t anodyne. We just choose inoffensive topics and perspectives on this here blog, how dare you call that anodyne?”
2 Likes
6 Likes
I was quoting Papasan’s (imho kind of smug) meme about holding your nose and voting for the lesser of two evils.
I was saying that I might not be prepared to do that again. The implication being don’t kneecap progressives in the primaries, because we might vote 3rd party this time.
7 Likes
Of course, the question is whether progressives were actually kneecapped in the primaries, or whether that’s just a narrative spun up to explain away the fact that the Democratic primary voters weren’t as interested in what said progressives were offering as they had hoped. (I tend to feel it’s the latter, but that’s just based on my cross-Atlantic overview of what went on during the 2016 primary season.)
Whatever the truth, though, voting for third party won’t help anything. In fact, it’s more likely to hurt.
3 Likes
There is no question of this. Please provide a source if you want to maintain otherwise. In addition to the structual conspiracy of “superdelegates” there were numerous other incidents, including leaking debate questions
But voting 1st party also hurts. Isn’t it entitled to think that one form of hurt is the only valid one?
To be clear, I voted for Obama, I voted for Hillary, and I will vote straight ticket D in the primaries. But at a certain point, enough is enough.
2 Likes
I’m sorry, if you’re referring to superdelegates as a “structural conspiracy”, then I don’t think you understand the Democratic primaries well enough to make cogent arguments about them. Seriously.
4 Likes
There’s no question that the DNC establishment did as much as they could to ensure a coronation for Clinton. There’s no question that the superdelegate system, while being far from a “conspiracy”, is an affront to a party that calls itself democratic. There’s also no question that Clinton was a horrible campaigner and continued to push Third Way policies that were a decade past their sell-by date.
None-the-less, the U.S. has for better or (usually) worse a duopoly system. If you’ve had enough of the Dem establishment I’m understand, but either get involved to reform the party or make sure a new and better party of the left takes its place in the duopoly. In the U.S. voting for a third party doesn’t help, and aiding the duopoly party of crazy and hate by refusing to vote for the other one, flawed though it may be, accomplishes very little except in very limited circumstances.
6 Likes
I don’t think they were put in place specifically to keep out progressives. I do think people push back against reducing their number because of progressives.
I’d appreciate if you can stick to addressing the points in my posts, rather than making baseless assumptions about my level of knowledge.
It was put in place to shut out insurgent candidates whose views weren’t in line with those of the party leadership. The history is complex, but characterising it as a “conspiracy” of any kind won’t promote the kind of serious discussion you want to have.
4 Likes
